Globalism refers to all the worldwide connections established throughout the globe. The level at which Globalism permeation is referred to as Globalisation. In the 1990s there was a movement reacting to the increased globalised labour, exploitation of people from third word countries, loss of local communities, destruction of the environment. The current Globalist aims permeate across many facets of a Nation State. Their main aim is to hold and expand the existing power structures and strengthen the hold of power by the establishment.

The chief exponents of the globalist ideology in the current world scenario are; Angela Merkel of Germany, Emmanuel Macron of France, Justin Trudeau of Canada. But there are many aspiring Nation States who also exhibit the same sentiments. These leaders concentrate on liberal immigration policies, a generous welfare state, high taxation, a high intake of refugees and immigrants. The EU is an active actor of globalism as it represents group interests of many countries and often downgrades the role of the individual Nation State. At the heart and central to globalism are the banking cartels and old money families. There is a range of publicly listened multi national companies that are active across the world. However, the same names appear on the owners’ registrar, the same pool of money owns those commanding heights of the economy, power and influence across the world.

For their part, the aforementioned globalist facilitate the status quo, in that, they promote policies, actions and legislation that aids the globalist elites. These leaders concentrate on liberal Ideals and shun values such as Nationalism, Patriotism and Populism. Macron and Merkel expressed their strong distain for those ideologies. Their sentiments echo socialist sentiments, a platform that was not part of their elected legitimacy, however they persisted to move the political ground towards the left. The social unrest in both France and Germany suggests that there is an illegitimacy about their actions. The east of Germany rebelled against the Berlin line public protests questioning the migration of policies on a local level. The shift in the demographics in some German towns has been dramatic and unsettling for the locals. The French yellow vest movement began as a strike over fuel prices but quickly morphed into an all encompassing nationwide action on social issues.

Globalism on the domestic front, favours polices of bodies such as EU, IMF and the World Bank, thereby undermines the Nation State. In that respect it favour acting as part of organisations that act across borders, and policies that favour acting in group interest and not in the interests of the said country. In that respect Nationalism is a dirty word to Globalism’s practitioners. They favour multi-lateral actions and objectives. However, by doing so, they risk being put off side with their own people. As is the case in France at the moment. And proved to be the case in the UK with the recent Brexit movement. It is only logical that if a country’s administration accepts multilateral public actors into the public domain of a country, they will also accept private actors such as multi national corporations. In fact, these have undermined the governments for many decades.

There is a lot of friction between the two competing world views on the national level. Italy toed the globalist line accepting thousands of illegal immigrants via NGO taxis from the North African Coast. Processing centres were full to capacity and the cost to the Italian people was impacting their standard of living. Italy elected a populist government, which caused unease and the relations between Rome and Brussels to deteriorate. Stamping down on perceived dissident actions, such as overriding the EU policies with nationalist priorities. The NGOs are in the wrong to support illegal migration, in this instance, and the many other EU economic policies, as they rarely have the interest of said countries at heart. Globalism strengthens the existing grip of the establishment on economic and political resources. It is ironic that the left supports those global elites’ efforts thinking they are contributing to a redistribution and greater equality and social changes, when the opposite is the case. They are foot soldiers for the globalist elite and facilitate globalist spread across the world.

It was extensively reported that Australian government email systems have recently been under unprecedented attack from China. However an Australian man from Noosa Heads has claimed that he carried out the phishing attack on Federal email systems.

Mr.Peter Eliahi Priest provided substantial evidence to back his claim. Including a statutory declaration stating that he launched the attack and a release of sensitive information.

The information Mr. Priest released relates to the alleged drug smuggling activities of CIA during the 1970s. Mr.Priest claims that a substantial amount of drugs was smuggled by CIA through Australia and the income from those illegal activities was hidden in a bank in Scotland. Some of the classified information was released after the death of President George Bush Sr. He pointed to an involvement of two state actors. Vietnam’s heroin exports and Nicaraguan cocaine.

Mr.Priest said that he contacted various Federal bodies with his claims however those claims were ignored. He also claims that he met with a close friend of Prime Minister Morrison and has evidence that the friend passed on the information to Mr.Morrison. It is his belief that the current administration does not want to risk a diplomatic incident or undermine the Pacific Partnership.

Mr.Priest recorded a number of live feeds as evidence to support his claims. In an emotional speech he said that he is a patriot and that his family has a long history in Australia and in the military. He said that all the work he carried out on this attack was pro bono, and guided by his care for Australia. He said that journalists are not willing to take on the story and that he hopes that it is publicised.

Australia has enjoyed a high standard of living for several decades now, but there several years now that standard has been slipping. This has been coupled with static wage growth an exponential increase in migration. However, with this has meant pressures on the existing infrastructure system and pressure to build at an exponential rate.

The Australian dream has always been to own a home, ideally on a quarter acre block close to public transport, shopping, schools, social establishments. But with large increases in migration, especially to the large metropolitan areas such as Sydney or Melbourne there is a lot of pressure on Australia’s infrastructure. As an example: roads are clogged, daily commutes increase in time, it takes more resources to get to work. In addition, foreign entities such as the Chinese Communists have taken upon themselves to buy up Australian assets. The policies relating to those issues need to change for the standard of living in Australia to remain high.

Now, I am all for migration, demographically essential for a healthy economy and for general well being of the country. But numbers need to be restricted. In that Australia accepts our quota of refugees, and migrants who are of benefit to Australia. But the essential thing is not to overwork our existing systems. Immigration has to be linked to performance of the migrant. One may say that it is, but those standards have to be strict. The main priority of the Australian government should be to improve the life of the citizens as currently their life quality is slipping.

For instance, in 1985 one could purchase a house for under 4 times the average wage in 2015 that changed to 11.5 times. There are many various tolls in major cities increasing the amount one has to pay to travel. The alternative, that is public transport, also increases over indexation every year. There is added pressure on the health and welfare systems especially in major cities. Increases in housing prices and high rental, have made them concurrently expensive. In addition, the government has liberalised the markets and making them accessible to foreign investors. The increases in population also puts pressure on food providers, which is further strained in times of flood or drought. Yes, Australia is a large land mass but those supplies are not inexhaustible.

As Australia reached 25 million residents in August last year, it was an appropriate time to put breaks on the ever increasing numbers of immigrants. I remember when Australia reached 20 million residents in 2003, 15 years later the population increased by five million people. We learned to cope with the increase however the there is strain, especially in the major cities. Post WWII European migrants stayed in regional areas, and I think that the same could applied today. The Labor opposition said that they want to build 250 thousand homes, and that is a good start to ease the affordability issues. Another side includes restricting the current crop of housing to foreign buyers and farm land, for that matter, on national security concerns. Lastly the Australian citizen should come first, charity begins at home, public money should be spent on programs and policies that benefit the Australian people, and in particular addressing wage stagnation especially among the working class.

The indoctrination of political correctness is a direct opposite of free speech. I believe that anything short of advocating for violence should be allowed to be expressed in the public domain. Those opposite will have you believe that restraint is necessary, and being offended is somehow in vogue.

The perpetually offended would like to curtail anything that they find offensive. Given that in reality anything that offends is often something they disagree with, what offends is a very subjective, and it is impossible to police it. It might be controlled in an Orwellian type 1984 scenario. I posit that this is exactly what some of these free speech ‘control freaks’ want. That is place of where sameness prevails. In that its their way or the highway. In that respect it is a very authoritarian, communist way of perceiving the world. Now, it is a way to go about seeing the world, but not a particularly positive perspective.

The fact is that it is often from the comfort of a capitalist country instead of some collective that they imagine a Marxist utopia where people erect Stalin’s statue in the backyard, have Trotsky speeches playing on loop while they sleep and the best thing they ever read was Mao’s biography.

There is a persistent logic than permeates their thinking. Their online existence declares various virtues: refugee empowerment, rights of minorities, environment protection. This being an endless list of issues they claim constant engagement. However, as I discovered many times, these acceptance, tolerance and understanding goes out the window if they’re presented with a viewpoint that differs from their own.

Recently I blocked one such enlightened soul on Facebook as he exposed his real views following me posting something in support of Donald J. Trump. I don’t mind someone disagreeing with me, I encourage a healthy debate. This man knew my background, that I came to Australia as a kid after my parents sought political asylum. But decided to declare under my post: ‘We let you in, and that’s how you repay us”. So in his opinion I have to submit to a certain way of viewing the world or else I am not welcome in this country. This kind of attitude permeates a lot of progressive thinking and is in fact a weakness of their whole philosophy. Its only through free speech that people are able to build, develop and communicate freely. Changing this does, would not benefit anyone in fact it will hinder the status quo.

Social media has permeated all facets of daily life of a large section of the world community. The role of the corporation becomes pivotal in upholding the standards during exchanges of communication between millions upon millions of users. Hence there is an onus on the corporate entity to uphold a morality that oversees the actions of countless users. That is always going to be a tough ask. How do you balance all providing a guiding code without infringing on the rights of users?In affect the members of the online community who form legitimise and validate the social media platform, need to be at the centre of concern for those organisations.

Having a monopoly on something in the corporate world usually translates to responsibility and adhering to a social contract. Unfortunately a lot of online based companies such as Facebook and Twitter have proven that power indeed corrupts. They have to decide if they are a platform or a broadcaster. They are governed by different rules. If you are a platform then you should not censor views. Unless they call for violence, otherwise free speech should prevail. However Facebook has regularly censored free speech a number of subjective measures. One of those is through encouraging members to report others if they find something offensive. This in turn opens up a Pandora’s Box of issues. Anyone can be reported for anything, and being found guilty means is essentially a kangaroo court decision as any right to appeal is deleted. No response ever given to said appeal. The penalty can range from a twenty four hour ban to three consecutive monthly bans.

What gives the right to those companies to censor views or ban users? Because of the overarching market saturation Twitter and Facebook have should not give them the right to ban members for life, as there was a case with Twitter and YouTube many times. The social isolation caused by this, is not only at a cost to the individual users, its also a cost to the community at large. For example, the broadcaster Alex Jones has had his channel deleted offYouTube several times. Granted, his content is controversial and really ‘out there’ but despite this its important that all views are represented and any banning of opinions will encourage them festering underground. It is for the interest of the community to that a range of opinions is entertained and debated.

The social media companies have as part of their mission statement an expressed desire to serve the community, adhere to a series of standards.They need to make sure that all this inclusiveness and good will is more than just sanctimonious virtue singalling. The is a pattern that those organisations follow, and it involves having a great idea of an virtual community, and gaining popularity then instating a set of laws that tend to be fairly conservative and no longer look after the community as much as their shareholders. As if the entity became too big for its own good. This is akin to multi national companies in other sectors such as, in recent times, banking. As we saw through Australia’s Royal Commission the is a level of arrogancethat leads one to confirm the fact that power corrupts and these social companies need to adhere to a set guidelines they themselves set. At the very least.

Social media companies do provide an essential service, but they cannot be guided by a sense of their own morality, they have to fulfil public expectations, uphold democratic values, free speech. And redefine their role: Are they a platform or a broadcaster. These are seperate role. State that you have an agenda, and keep instating political correctness or be what you set out to be and let the users form their own meaning through interaction.

We’re seeing a strong return to the realpolitik world of the Cold War however now it is trade that is the weapon. China, Russia and the USA are clearly asserting their dominance through soft and hard power. Britain has too enacted those principles via Brexit and recently by deploying a craft to the South-China Sea and dismissing of Russian diplomats from their shores. Russia has replied in kind, and these tit for tat actions may not end there. However these actions are coupled with trade considerations.

It’s a much different world to a decade ago were one might argue that the world was brought together by the GFS begun by irresponsible banking practices. Admittedly, in the decade since, the strengthening off banking practices and in consequence making the government institutions bigger and more pronounced.

However currently the same institutions have been blamed for the slowness of recovery and feared for the ostensibly high excessive amount of power that they now hold. For instance when President Trump signed a number of tariffs recently the Federal Reserve called it a negative step and the markets reacted, however briefly, to the news.

In his defence Trump was merely responding to the negative trade balance between US and China. As countries scampered for dispensations, USA was clearly seen as holding the trump card. The last time America had a trade balance positive was nearly fifty years ago. You can’t blame Trump for moving to change that, it was of course one of his election promises. He wants to American industry and jobs to be protected. Quite frankly I am not surprised.

The counter-narrative of this protectionism is that a trade war will ensue. This is of course a fatalistic proposition one that does not take into account all the checks and balances in place in the world economy. That is the agreements already in place that relate to international trading, such as unilateral and others and the necessity of trade such as in the case of steel and aluminum products. For instance China buys a huge amount of iron ore and metals in general but produces fridges, microwaves, watching machines and the like and sell those to America as value added products. The cost of labor is cheaper in China so it makes sense for the world economy that China is where those metal goods are produced. It also makes sense that regardless of the tariffs USA purchases those goods, as the cost of manufacturing is higher there. A tariff may lower amount of metal good purchased by America and China may respond by buying iron ore from someone else, but the US may turn to other emerging economies for metal products thus stumping China in the process. Trump says: it takes two to play the game and if you won’t follow the rules, tough luck.

China had it coming, quite frankly, and I would not be surprised if this is only the start of US trade actions again it. For years the Chinese have broken every conceivable trading rule under the sun, yet the liberal media and central banks attack the US. They have made copyright infringements, pegged their currency to the dollar, and were involved in trade piracy. Other countries are dependent on cheap Chinese imports. However that is about to change. And it’s a good thing.

Soon many developed countries will source their products from other developing economies such as India, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Indonesia. Just to mention the Asian Chinese competitors. It is high time that the developed economies lowered their heavy reliance on China and spread their trading amongst other partners, including Africa. This will naturally lead to a lowering of the importance of the Chinese producers. It is the countries that heavily depend on China who have expressed the greatest concern to Trump’s measures. However the status quo can’t prevail and Trump’s way is the right way.

I’d like to write a few words on public housing in Sydney and other centres. Not only as the New South Wales State elections are coming up in March this year more importantly that there is a need to provide housing assistance, the priority being the nearly 60 thousand people on the waiting list. Currently the chance of being placed on priority listing is minimal while the alternative being a ten year plus wait to be housed. The people placed on the priority housing list face up to a two year wait to get housed. However it is only ten percent of applicants who are in this privileged situation. Most, including the mentally and physically ill can look forward to years of unstable living conditions and an elevation of their illness. That is unless they meet stringent conditions governed to gain priority listing.

My main question with the status quo is that there isn’t enough housing being provided. Put on the market as it were. In a society that prides itself on egalitarian values there is as per usual a group of citizens that is left behind. What’s concerning is the hardships that these people are facing. These are not being met by the State Government in any way, shape or form. I mean if those people were a part of a lobby group the powers that be would take notice.

What could happen in this instance is involvement of private institutions. Homelessness is a problem that is prevalent across society thereby it should be solved by a concerted effort. In this respect I envisage private-public partnerships in building, fixing and providing accommodation. I am not calling for a privatization of the service, it’s a scary thought being an untested proposition. As public housing should remain just that. However corporate Australia should help out in providing and maintaining this essential service.